Case Title: Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr
Case No: Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2024
Decided on: 17th January, 2024
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Facts of the Case
The complainant-appellant asserted that the public servant accused had engaged in the production of fraudulent official documents, exploiting his official role as a Village Accountant.
Issue
Is it necessary to obtain sanction for prosecuting the accused public servant, who is accused, among other charges, of fabricating counterfeit documents through the misuse of his official position as a Village Accountant?
Legal Provision
Section 197 (1) of CrPC states that- When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his officer save by or with the sanction of the Government, is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State of the State Government.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Supreme Court rendered a decision in a criminal appeal, asserting that the prerequisite of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable when charging a public servant for the creation of fake documents, as such actions do not fall within the purview of their official duties. The High Court had previously dismissed the criminal proceedings against the public servant due to the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, overturned the High Court’s ruling, allowing the complainant-appellant’s criminal appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 197 CrPC does not provide protection for every act or omission of a public servant during their service but is confined to those acts or omissions carried out in the discharge of official duties.
The court relied on the judgment in Shambhoo Nath Misra v. State of U.P., particularly citing Paragraph 5, which established that the fabrication of records and misappropriation of funds by a public servant cannot be considered part of official duties. The court quoted a relevant excerpt from the Shambhoo Nath Misra case, emphasizing that it is not within the official duties of a public servant to fabricate false records or misappropriate public funds; instead, their official capacity merely enables such actions. The court also referenced the State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew judgment, asserting that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to acts or omissions by a public servant in the discharge of official duty.
Drawing from these precedents, the court concluded that the creation of documents or fabrication of records cannot be deemed part of a public servant’s official duty. Consequently, the court held that the High Court’s decision to quash the complaint and chargesheet was erroneous. The court set aside the High Court’s order and clarified that the observations made in the judgment were solely for the purpose of deciding the present challenge and should not be construed as an opinion on merit. The court, while allowing the criminal appeal of the complainant, kept all contentions open.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Afshan Ahmad
